Vaktathi

Dropfleet stuff has been taken to new home. Everything else is still available for free but needs to go soon as I'm moving out and need to vacate, otherwise sadly it will be binned.

Firestorm/BFG box https://imgur.com/jygdtTU Dropfleet https://imgur.com/pWNszPE https://imgur.com/qxrnJdd Needs to be gone soon!

So I have a bunch of Flames of War stuff, almost all WW2 German except some Soviet IS3's. I have realized I just am never going to have the time to get back into FoW or finish these projects, nor do I really want to try and list and label and resell everything separately, and need it gone in the next couple days. I don't want to toss it all however, and would prefer it go to a good home, so if anyone in the Portland area wants pick it up, it's yours. Post here and I'll PM you, first come, first served. Here's the pics. https://imgur.com/mmbKjbL https://imgur.com/xxgBzb5 EDIT: Also have Dropfleet Commander stuff, mostly the original kickstarter mostly still on sprue, and a bunch of old Firestorm Armada minis. Don't have pics yet, but I'll get them up later today.

Having played through each of these editions, I do think the newer books are better balanced internally and externally, despite the reductions in options and awful state of the core rules. That said, they're not perfect, but there's fewer outright pointless units and fewer "auto-takes" in general in the 7E books. The 6E books are something of a mess, with Eldar and Tau being clearly superior to everything else, the basic SM codex is the only one I really like. Personally, I think the 5E core rules were better than 7E's core rules (though by no means perfect, so much so that I am continually surprised by my preference for it over other editions), while the 7E codex books in general are better designed than the 5E books in terms of internal balance and relative strengths to each other (but again, nowhere near perfect). Just my opinion however. The 5E books in many ways felt like they just came out and vomited new stuff for its own sake, often without really thinking it through. Some were taken from previous editions or Epic, the Griffon, Medusa, Thundefire Cannon (redone Thudd gun), while other felt like forced or like a duplication of effort or simple drug-induced bad ideas (e.g. Stormraven, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Paladins, Dreadknights, Wolfclaws, Nemesis Doomfists, Bloodfists, etc) The latter seems to have been somewhat toned down of late, though somewhat replaced unfortunately by formations and inclusion of increasingly scale-inappropriate units. I don't necessarily disagree with that statement in principle, nor have I stated that I fully agree with all of the changes. At the same time however some of them I think do make sense, and were fairly predictable. This is an example I'd agree with, it could have been solved simply by fixing the costs. I won't argue that. That said, was their original inclusion really a great choice in the first place? That very question seems to be something of a topic of discussion elsewhere regarding some of the BA changes and has been asked of some things in some of the other recent books and their predecessors. Replaced one, the Griffon (removed for the *second* time, was in the 2E and 3E codex books, removed in the 3.5E book, reintroduced in the 5E book, and removed again with the 6E book) was replaced by the Wyvern to some degree. There's no direct or indirect replacement for the other units. The Taurox certainly isn't a replacement for anything, nor are Bullgryns, while Scions are just a new face on an old unit. Either way, it's not my intention to bemoan the IG codex (and, I'll be honest, I never used most of those units), but rather to contrast the differences in what we're talking about here. A lof of these changes in the BA book are the type of thing that just happen when codex books change, as opposed to wholesale deletion of stuff as a result of unforseen business and legal issues. For example, few were upset that Dreads were moved from Elites to HS in the last BA book for instance or found that particularly troubling, just as there doesn't seem to be much to-do about it moving back. Just like BA's had W3 Chaplains in 3E, lost them with the 4E book, got them back with the 5E book and now seem to have lost them again. Or how the Reclusiarch in the 4E SM codex was the W2 Chaplain (while the W3 one was the Master of Sanctity) but in the 5E BA codex it became the W3 version. Again, a lot of these things are just simply things that happen with GW codex changes, and were predictable to one degree or another. DC were arbitrarily moved to Troops, them arbitrarly moving back isn't that surprising. Hell, look at Tyranid Warriors, they've been in every FoC slot except Heavy Support. Who knows where they could be next? Not denying that. All I've done is extrapolate my reasoning behind why I think GW thought it was the way to go. Hrm, I'm going to take issue with the math here. A BS4 plasma gun firing two shots against a jinking Devilfish will inflict an average of 0.22 HP's (2shots*(2/3 for BS4)*(1/3 chance of inflicting a Glance or Pen)*(1/2 Jink save)=0.22 HP's inflicted on average) and .0185 Explodes results (2shots*(2/3 for BS4)*(1/6 chance of inflicting a Pen)*(1/2 Jink save)*(1/6 chance of exploding=.0185 average Explodes results), against a Predator in the open with no cover save using the same equation, it will inflict the same amount of average HP loss, 0.22, and zero chance of an explodes result. If the Devilfish does not Jink (or say an order like Fire On My Target is used on it or Perfect Timing power), then it loses 0.44 HP's on average and .037 Explodes results. If the Predator is able to gain even a 5+ cover save, it's only taking 0.147 HP's, or 0.11 HP's is it's getting a 4+ behind an Aegis Line or Ruin or the like. Under pretty much any of those circumstances, the plasma gun is still inflicting more damage on average against the Devilfish than against the Predator from the front. Either way, I've never seen someone try and equate Predators and Devilfish, especially as the Devilfish also serves a significantly different battlefield role, it's a dedicated transport and not a battle tank. You're putting words in my mouth and deriving conclusions I never stated. Sure the Baal can exist. But it's a battle tank, it is neither a light scout vehicle, nor faster than anything else in the BA armory. Its role and armor are far more suited to Heavy Support, and it existed there just fine (and without Scout) in that same slot before and will exist just fine back in HS now. I guess you can call that "not wanting it to exist" I guess, but it's exactly that type of unit escalation that I feel brought the game (in part) to some of the mess that it's in, and no other army has such a heavily armored tank in FA that I can think of off the top of my head (I could be wrong I guess but I can't think of anything), particularly not when everything else is just as fast. By the same token, I think the Vendetta too belongs in Heavy Support (like the Stormraven) instead of Fast Attack for many of the same reasons, being both very heavily armored for a flyer (AV12 both front and side instead of AV10 or AV11 like most newer flyers or the pre-5E FW Valkyrie), and mounts lots of heavy & accurate long ranged weapons. I was actually somewhat surprised when it *wasn't* moved to Heavy Support, and won't be surprised or upset if it gets moved there in the future. GW isn't putting them in FA either anymore... Lots of people were very puzzled by that FoC placement when the last book came out, I was not the only one that found the choice curious. The chance of that occurring was something many should have been prepared for as a possibility. Except nothing about the Baal's speed is exceptional within the BA army, normal Predators in the 5E codex are also Fast, as are Vindicators and Whirlwinds. Tau yes, fire warriors and pathfinders in Ruins or behind Aegis lines and the like, quite frequently. Eldar, typically not, but sometimes. You also need not drop the Tacs turn 1 if you've got other units to bring in and use to pop transports first or whatnot. But, I digress... I had a big thing written up ready to get into a debate over whether it's not the loss of the Assault Marines innate unit properties that really are going to be felt, but rather the tactical capability of a specific special weapons loadout. However, there appears to a significant amount of emotion here, and it doesn't look like this particular avenue of discussion is going to be particularly agreeable or productive at the current time and with an incomplete picture of the codex, along with differing ideas on what exactly reflects the fluff of the BA's better, and will simply add unneeded stress on all involved if continued, along with getting further and further from my original post's point and intent. I'll sign off this particular thread at this point in light of that. Apologies if any offense was given for anything.

Whatever one may think of the overall armies, there were very clearly certain broken *things* in each army. Stuff like 5pts to make GK Autocannons S8, 130pts Vendettas, GH squads that were simultaneously cheaper and more capable and more versatile than Tac squads, etc. the loss of which were subsequently bemoaned as "removing flavor". I'm not saying GW always gets it right (they don't, and I'm not exactly a GW apologist here), but a lot of the 5E books had some issues with outlier units/wargear. Which is different to the point I was making earlier. Likewise, I'm not sure how accurate the point about game sales is, adjusted for inflation GW's been on a consistent downhill slide in terms of real revenue of late, with GW's peak years in terms of both real and nominal revenue were the late 3E and early 4E years, with 2004 I believe being the peak year for both, and the release year of 4th edition. Again however, I did note that I can understand the issues and feel for certain things. I'm not saying everything is 100% puppies and roses or that everyone should be cheery happy with this new book. Only that I can see a train of thought behind the changes and that some of the changes in the previous book which now are being lost weren't necessarily well thought out in the first place, and losing some of those was to be expected, and that it's not nearly as bad as some other armies have had to deal with even relatively recently. In fact, the big thing that kept me from attempting to build BA "Armored Company" style list back in 2010 when the book came out was thinking the entire time that "By the time I get this bought, built, and painted, I'll get in a few games with it and then they'll move those Baal's right back to Heavy Support..." I had to go looking for this. You are correct, but that's some stupid fluff and not something I'd want to try to defend very hard. Either way, pretty much *every* Tactical Squad would still have to basically be at the point where they're no longer combat effective or usable in battle at all for such numbers to even out, they'd have to be crippling themselves just to maintain Assault squads, "just because", and the same section specifically states that the number of squads is no different and that "this should not be taken to indicate that assault squads are more prevalent here than in other chapters" word for word. If it's jinking evey turn? Sure, but it's also vulnerable to much lighter weaponry like Autocannons and Plasma Guns that the Baal isn't going to be too afraid of from the front, and a Jinking gun-tank isn't putting out much firepower (barring Wave Serpents and Annihilation Barges) nor using template weapons. That said, the Jink mechanic is also rather busted right now for many reasons (e.g. Skimmers can Jink when Immobilized, Jink has no effect on passengers shooting or assaulting out of transports, FMC's can Jink even when walking, etc) Only when you take into account an evasion mechanic which reduces their effectiveness (and isn't quite working right in the first place) If you compare it to a Hellhound type vehicle, a much more appropriate comparison given the unit type and battlefiled role, that AV13 makes a world of difference, it comes with smoke launchers, has two secondary weapons (as opposed to just one) at higher ballistic skill, and can Scout/Outflank, and even with the expensive HB sponsons is still only like 10pts more than a Banewolf (the closest match for a Flamestorm cannon) with an HB and smoke launchers. It having Scout is another thing that was silly of it in the first place. For all of its previous incarnations it was a Heavy Support battle tank. The previous book gave it what many at the time of its release considered an inappropriate special rule and FOC placement, and post-Ward GW apparently feels much the same way. We'll see if it keeps Scout, I suspect not, but I could be wrong. It does indeed, but has to get to that side AV11. While not impossible by any means, we're also not talking about a Battlewagon here (where its almost impossible *not* to hit side armor). Outflanking/Scounting and Fast predators should have far less issues with that than many other vehicles. The frontal AV is by far the most important facing and having AV13 vs AV12 on the front is in most cases more than enough to require an entirely different strategy and weaponry to engage versus dealing with AV12 and lower vehicles which can commonly be engaged with secondary and multi-role weapons. Either way, most people wouldn't put AV13 tanks with multiple BS4 heavy weapons in the FA slot. Ultimately, it getting moved to HS shouldn't be a terrible shock to most people. I'm not exactly "lauding" it, those are your words, not mine. I'm simply pointing out that the new list has some of its own advantages and people are already finding effective ways to make use of them. As for the drop pod marines, if the Eldar and Tau aren't sitting in a transport you bet they do, as will most anything that isn't a tank. Likewise, lets not pretend the assault capabilities of Assault Marines are any more terrifying in such situations, the only thing Eldar or Tau will care about (if there's no available infantry for the DS'ing unit to to engage) will be if they brought 2x meltaguns (we'll see if that stayed, that was also a Ward introduction). I didn't say you had to base an army around it or that'd be amazing against everything, it was simply one example of an effective use of tactical marines with the new book, and not every unit has to be capable of harming a Knight to have a place in an army. Are only units that are able to take 2 Melta guns worth considering?

I may be missing something, but looking at the 4E WD list, DC were limited to 10 models. It was theorectically possible to get a huge DC unit out of the 3E book given its random determination, but would in practice usually be 5-6 guys, rarely ever reaching even 10 strong. Additionally, with regards to the pattern of the 7E books, I'm not trying to get at a qualitative jdugement of them (there are things I don't like about them as well), I'm pointing out that they're toning down the more ridiculous aspects of the 5E books. Lets be fair here, with some of these things, there was a degree of confusing "interesting and unique" with "powerful and undercosted". Not going to name names or point fingers, nor will I make any claim to this being addressed specifically at BA's, but this issues definitely existed with some books of that era that have been recently replaced. Besides, It's not like they had the bulk of their characters, half their artillery, and a troops unit actually straight up deleted from the codex entirely simply because there were no plastic kits, while leaving most of the non-functional units still broken, on top of a painfully stupid name change, like they foisted upon the Imperial Guard. They should also be able to field an entire company of Devastators too just as easily, that doesn't mean they need to make Devastators Troops however. Yes, C:SM has its thing for Bikers as troops, and again, that book is the exception to just about everything, in part because it's also responsible for portraying 99.7% of all loyalist Space Marine forces. Additionally, those reserve companies typically aren't fielded as one big company, they're almost always parcelled out as needed to battle companies according to the needs of a campaign and the battle plans of individual commanders. We're getting into pure conjecture here on casualty rates and replacement for which we have nothing solid other than "blood angels like running in assault squads". We don't know that their assault squads will always be at full strength by any means, only that they have lots of volunteers for them. Such would nominally be up to their commanding officers and the demands of the battlefield. In every depiction of the chapter, going back to the Angels of Death 2E codex, their official organization has consistently and clearly shown them to be a standard Codex organized Chapter and detailed exactly how many units of each type they have, with about twice as many tactical squads as assault squads. Nothing to indicate any difference in the number of squads than any other codex army, from 2nd edition through to the present day. Even the depicted Chapter organization, unless those tactical squads are always running at 50% strength or less and the assault squads always at 100% (which would be absolutely daft from any realistic military standpoint and has no indication in any BA fluff) there's no way there's even parity between the number of actual Tactical and Assault marines given the squad numbers given. Even if they do prioritize the Assault squads for replacements, you're probably not talking much more than relatively small shift in the total numbers ratio, we might be talking about an effective difference of a couple dozen marines difference at best from their paper strength unless they're taking far higher casualties in their Tac squads than their Assault Squads (which should typically be exactly the opposite) and not even attempting to refill tac squads until Assault squads are completely up to strength, which would make for very poor battlefield doctrine. Often there simply wouldn't be the ability to transfer excess marines into assault squads also ("Sorry up-and-coming-Brother Bob, we had three openings in Assault Squads this morning after Squad Lucius took that battlecannon shell, but they're all filled now, 4th company needs loads of assault marines, but we in 5th have five tactical and two devastator spots open and 4th company is 37,000 Light Years away, go report to Tactical Sergeant Titus immediately") And the Blood Angels have absolutely nothing anywhere in any fluff that's ever been written that would attribute a significantly out-of-the-ordinary number of marines to the Chapter that I've ever heard of (as opposed to the Black Templars where it's openly and clearly stated in their fluff they typically run about five to six thousand strong), and certainly not huge numbers of specifically jump pack marines. GW's been pretty clear in spelling out exactly how many marines, tanks, command staff, dreads, squads, etc the Blood Angels have in clear detail. Indeed it does, and BA's are not the first to have to deal with that nor the worst affected by far. I understand the frustration, I've been there, I went through the loss of the 3.5E CSM codex, saw lots of purpose-built IG doctrine armies lose their unique abilities in 2009 (even though the 5E IG book was a big boost overall), I watched my CSM army become non-functional yet again in 2012, and I watched my old 2000pt IG tournament army become a 2310pt army (and much less effective overall to boot) overnight earlier this year. (Of course, all the while my Eldar haven't had to change a thing and remain perfectly viable and ridiculous...I should probably paint and play them again at some point. ) This happens pretty routinely. Lets not forget the Black Templars too XD In fact, basically all the "alternate" marines try to claim to be "fightier" save for the Dark Angels. They always largely were "red space marines". The 5E book certainly differentiated them more, but even at the time it was released it was seen as a rather hamfisted overboard attempt at justifying their separate existence, lots of people at the time thought it was quite overboard. However, ultimatley, I can't say *why* GW is turning away from the "flying" paradigm, only that it appears that they are. It would appear that, aside from the basic SM book and the concept of Chapter Tactics (which may have been a Jervis contribution), they're scrubbing Ward's lasting contributions from their game universe. They reverted back the transport capacity changes for instance. Grey Knights and Blood Angels are all now radically different than from his versions of these armies, and I suspect Necrons will be too. They got their 4E White Dwarf list barely a year before 5E came out, if that (and was not particularly widely used, I think I played a grand total of two of those WD BA armies in three years). Certainly not anywhere near 3E. While yes, Sanguinious had wings, it was associated far more with his metaphorical position in the lore and his divine presence in general than any sort of battle tactics his armies should emulate directly, at least until the 5E book which GW now seems to be actively rolling back. Typically things with frontal AV13 armor and up to three heavy weapons are not put on par with things like Devilfish. That's a stretch. Predators are described right in the codex as Main Battle Tanks. Given that *all* BA vehicles were fast, it's difficult to see why it needed to be in FA over HS, particularly as much of its armament wasn't ultra-close range. AV13 is definitely into "heavy armor" range where you can't rely on multi-role weapons like autocannons or scatterlasers to deal with the threat (as you can againt AV12 or AV11 units) and need actual AT guns like Lascannons and Meltaguns to engage them. BA's being the "SM armored company" army with AV13 combat vehicles in HS, FA, and Elites also fit neither the "Close Combat" theme nor the "Aerial Assault" theme. That was a big contribution to the last book being seen as reaching too far to justify its own existence when it came out four years ago, it was trying to do too many things in general. It wanted to be the Psyker army with HQ psykers and Elites dreadnought Psykers (more than any other army at the time could field I believe). It wanted to the SM Armored Company army. It wanted to be a CC heavy codex army. It wanted to be a jump pack and flyer army. For a single SM chapter, that was a stretch. Some would argue most of these changes are fixing poor design from the last book. Besides, with the army-wide Furious Charge and Initiative bonuses, on top of people already thinking about lists with BA tac squads podding in and dropping 3-4 flame templates on units (squad flamer, squad heavy flamer, potentially up to two hand flamers on sergeant), I don't think they're going to be hugely worrying about characterful armies being built that still bring teeth. Were it up to me, and I were writing the BA book, I would have made most of the changes that were made, but either left assault marines as Troops or made an unlock option for them the way C:SM does for bikes. I don't think there was anything spectacularly wrong with assault marines as Troops, but I can at least see the line of thinking behind the change as it has turned out.

It should also be noted that both the Revenant's current rules, and those allowing it in basic 40k games, are both products of GW's core design studio, not Forgeworld, the only hand FW has in the Revenant at this point is casting the resin. Same thing with the other Titans which currently have models.

Yes, but it was potentially the largest possible Marine squad in 40k also. I forgot they were in the 4E book, I don't recall anyone ever taking one then, my mistake, (though they do specifically note in that list that they put the crazy wounded guy into a dread, not that he's already in a dread when he goes crazy) I mean, given the design paradigm they seem to have followed for all of the "Not the basic C:SM" book, the changes should come as no suprise. Not that you necessarily have to like them. The core SM book is the one exception, but it is an exception, and particularly next to the other 7E SM books, the changes are very much in line with them. Yes but we're talking about one that is, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of those covered by the SM book are, and even the deviant ones still *largely* stick to the same rough organizational standard if not command and battle doctrines. No, they aren't, that's just it. Blood Angels don't have great gobs of assault marines. Their organization and troop dispositions are made clear, they are still based very closely around standard Codex organization with Tactical squads as their most numerous unit by far. It's laid out plain as day right there in the 5E codex, page 9. The Blood Angels have 18 Assault Squads (two in each of the 2nd through 5th companies and ten in the 8th Assault Company), exactly like the Ultramarines, the only additional source of jump pack troops being 29 Sanguinary Guard in their own little extra non-codex command group. Meanwhile the Blood Angels have 34 Tactical Squads. My guess, again, is that GW wants to represent them as a codex chapter with a close assault preference, hence the universal Furious Charge and universal +1 Init when charging that's rumored to be their army-wide special rule, as opposed to completing the re-write that was attempted with the last book and turning them into some sort of completely jump-oriented chapter. The whole "aerial combat" thing was a creation of the 5E codex primarily (along with lots of new fluff around the Stormraven). Before that, it as expressly portrayed as a "close combat" preference, not an "aerial" one. The ASM's as troops was originally intended to reinforce the close combat aspect, not some sort of aerial aspect. That said, the removal of assault marines as troops does surprise me as it was the primary tabletop differentiator of theirs, but I can see where they are coming from in doing so. As noted, this book appears to be "un-Warding" the Blood Angels, and returning them to something more akin to their 2E/3E fluff (as the 4E book didn't have much fluff either way). As such, that whole "aerial" concept would be rolled back to the "close combat" thing from earlier editions. From the reactions on other boards, it appears that most people who have been playing BA's significantly longer than the 5E book don't seem quite as overly upset by the changes as those who started with the 5E book, for this exact reason. It sucks for those players, I'm not going to deny that. However, some of the changes that appear to be imminent should have been obvious even from the release of the last book (e.g. heavy battle tanks were not going to stay Fast Attack forever just as it was clear to any IG player in 2009 that Vendettas would not stay 130pts when the next update rolled around) and most should not be surprised at most of the other changes (again, barring the change to assault marines, that is surprising simply because it was the primary tabletop differentiator) given the way most of the other books have been going of late. That's a topic for another thread entirely, though I'm of the opinion that they haver never really *needed* their own unique codex, and that the last book was an overreaching attempt to hamfistedly justify one, and GW appears to be rolling much of that back but without wanting to simply roll them into C:SM.

In my experience, it's usually the ultra-competitors that want to ban FW because it upsets their meta, or people that think FW=Titans, or people that have had poor experiences against bad proxies with incorrect rules (usually some guy with a completely inappropriate model stating it has all sorts of ridiculous abilities and is from Forgeworld, but doesn't have the actual rules), and the like in most instances. Others may vary. I like FW because I like running my Death Korps assault brigade, using my Chaos Decimator walker and Rapier Laser Destroyers, and seeing units like Tantalus skimmers, Megadreads, and Hornets on tables. Between allies, Lords of War, Unbound, multiple detachements, formations that give free special rules and abilities for no points costs and ignore FoC's entirely, etc, it's very difficult to see where FW makes anything worse. Particularly when FW balance generally isn't any worse than GW's other stuff (it's actually probably better as they do actual playtesting, release experimental rules and change/update units based on player feedback). In every instance where an FW unit has been pulled into a codex, as far as I can recall its been dramatically improved. FW isn't perfect, but they're usually better than core GW, and besides, all these things exist in the 40k universe (many of them being former codex units like Rapiers or Griffons), the distaste some people have for FW stuff is always quite puzzling.

I don't play BA's, so make of this what you will. From my perspective, GW is "de-Warding" the book, for lack of a better term. When the last BA book came out, BA's were redfined radically. Many of the units now being changed were of great controversy. AV13 battle tanks as Fast Attack? Dreads as Troops? Death Company (not units that are simply on hand for just any battle the BA's engage in, much less available en-masse) as troops? Why were they suddenly the best armored battlegroups amongst the Astartes and overflowing with potentially huge numbers of insane Marines, and why are they putting them in gigantic battle robots? Given the way the other Marine books released in the last two years have turned out, the changes to most of these units shouldn't come as any surprise at all. Additionally, while the removal of assault marines as Troops units is somewhat surprising (given that it was the primary gameplay differentiator), from a fluff perspective it's understandable, the BA's are a codex-adherent chapter, they don't have great masses of Assault Marines, they don't have the almost sub-chapter-ish formations like DA have in the Deathwing and Ravenwing. They are simply a largely codex chapter with a preference for, and great skill at, close combat, but ultimately still built around the same organization and unit ratios that chapters like the Ultramarines are. It sucks for the people who built armies around these FoC peculiarities, but (at least to me), it looks like GW is bringing them back more to their 2E "Angels of Death" roots and removing the crazier elements of the previous codex (as they've been doing with each marine codex), perhaps tossing out some of the baby with the bathwater, but bringing the FoC more inline with their actual organization.

Given how awkward many Ruins terrain pieces are (often without footprints or with extremely confusing footprints), I usually just give my opponents a 4+ cover if behind ruins, I don't think I've ever seen someone try to play it as 5+ for being obsured by ruins but not actually in it, though that may just be convention. The terrain rules in general in this edition are somewhat...wanting however.

On topic, yeah, some FW stuff is absurdly expensive, especially if you're looking at an entire army of Knights (half of which are notably bigger than GW's plastic kit). That said, GW's core lineup is increasingly matching FW prices, many FW Character models are no more expensive than GW's plastic/finecast character models, and many newly released units are pretty much on par with FW pricing (e.g. repackaged Dire Avengers and the Tempestus Scions are identical in cost per model to a unit of FW Death Korps Grenadiers). That said, the bundle in question does save you ~$130 if you're looking to collect all the Knights anyway, that's who FW is marketing that for. Given that GW's webstore bundles usually save you $0 and are just easy "one-click" options, and that a 5 GW knights would still run you $700, I have a hard time seeing where this is so egregious.